Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal hypocrisy"

Revision as of 16:35, July 31, 2007

This should be merged

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with deceit, the occult, etc. --LiteratiChamp 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the characters they play a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in The Bunker he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? PortlyMort 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? Karajou 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:

"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"

That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. Karajou 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

It seems that stuff like that belongs in this article more than what characters they play do. Though one should be hesitant to classify as a hypocrite anyone who is critical of reliance on oil and who drives a car. It is very difficult for most people to get by without some sort of car, and impossible for them not to consume oil in some form. Owning a car while being an advocate for alternative energy isn't really hypocritical unless the car is a Hummer or some other such gas-guzzler. As for PETA, their anti-meat stance is pretty well documented. They stressed the dolphins because people are much more sympathetic to the plight of dolphins than to the tuna they put in their sandwiches. And it sort of worked, there were tuna boycotts, at least for a time. PortlyMort 14:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

The point of this is to illustrate the fact that many of these people refuse to practice what they preach. I've never accepted the passes these people give themselves to justify what they do while condemning others for the same things. If, for example, the man who drives the gas miser protests the man driving the gas guzzler, by what pass does the man in the gas miser get? He's still polluting; it may be less pollution, but it's still pollution. And PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill; they picked dolphins (which are cute) over tuna (which are tasty); both are still animals. Karajou 07:39, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not buying this argument. By merely existing one is going to contribute some pollution to the environment. I suppose the most ecological sound action a person can take is to kill himself and take as many people as possible with him, in an environmentally friendly manner (ie no nuking). Are we to believe that the only people who have a right to take a stand against pollution are mass murderer/suicides? Anyone who takes a stand against pollution and makes a conserted effort to meaningfully reduce the pollution he causes is not a hypocrite (note I say reduce, not eliminate, which would be impossible). Now, whether Al Gore really does as much as he should is somewhat doubtful. Is a person critical of loss of American jobs to China and such countries a hypcrite if they at some point in their life buy a good made in China (and it must be nearly impossible not to these days)? Is a conservative critical of Disney's "gay friendly" policies a hypocrite if at some point in their lives they spend $1 on something made by one of Disney's many subsidiaries? You also say "PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill", but PETA has never endorsed the killing of tuna. I'd bet you can find some hypocracy within the organiztion (and certainly among some of its members), but that's not an example. They made an issue of the dolphins because they knew it was an issue that registered with people. And since their drive to make everyone a vegetarian is doomed to failure, they picked a battle they thought they could win. Is a Christian charity that helps victims of poverty in India hypocritical for not doing the same for people in Namibia? Are they "picking and choosing" which people to save and which to let die? There are plenty of hypocrites out there, why use such bad examples? PortlyMort 15:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --9820 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree. There have been conservatives who have behaved in a hypocritical manner, much to the dismay of the country. I can give two examples of US Congressman, both of which are charged with making (and obeying) the laws on the books, and both of which broke those laws. One, Duke Cunningham of San Diego, was sent to the slammer for bribery, and the other (I forgot his name), a South Dakota representative, was given ten years for manslaughter because he felt he could speed on the highway when he ran down someone on a motorcycle. Karajou 07:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the movie quotes. They just plain were not relevent. It's a stupid as saying "Cloony supports stealing cause he wsa in oceans 11". Tesfan 11:51, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I also removed the following, because if you do not count the silly movie quotes, then there is no hypocrisy:

The quotes were put back. Karajou 12:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Why? Tesfan 12:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The answer to "why" is clearly listed above. Karajou 12:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting

Karajou, I was drafting a short edit when you protected the page; It's intellectually dishonest to claim Al Gore is hypocrtical in his energy use if you fail to mention his practicing carbon offsetting. Suggesting that he's hypocritical for attacking Big Oil and promoting fighting global warming while he still uses jets and has a large house is simply a strawman. If you'd really like, I will gladly enumerate some reasons why. However, in the meantime, I strongly advise you re-draft the criticism of Al Gore to mention his carbon offsetting. You can disagree that this practice is of the same value as the pollution he creates with his activity, but you can't simply dismiss it entirely. Stryker 12:34, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Explain carbon offsetting Karajou 12:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Carbon offsetting is the principle that you can augment behavior that pollutes the atmosphere by adopting and expressly practicing behaviors that reduce pollution. For instance, growing up, my family would plant trees and help rebuild forested areas, and many other people will do this because each tree will statistically reduce a certain amount of CO2 in the air over a period of time. Many wealthier people will also help fund the development of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar farms, which also help offset the carbon dioxide emissions they produce.

Simply put, celebrities such as Gore simply cannot avoid some of the emissiosn they produce. He is obligated to speak at certain forums, and there is no way he can make those speeches if he doesn't fly. To my knowledge, however, he doesn't usually use commercial airliners, preferring smaller, cleaner private jets. As for his house, the statistics on its energy usage are usually derived from stock figures on how much it costs to heat, cool, and light a house of the size. To my knowledge, again, he offsets these by not heating/cooling the entire building, using newer LED and other light teechnologies to reduce that energy usage, and also supplements the energy with renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. This is all in addition to buying Carbon Credits, funding re-forestation, and funding the development of renewable energy sources. Stryker 12:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I figured carbon offsetting would be just another pass. Man drives a car 10 hours a day, feels bad he's polluting, gets a tree, plants it in the ground. Does he reduce his driving to five hours a day, thereby reducing the pollution, or is he going to rely on that tree to "off-set" the carbon he continues to generate? Give us all a break, Stryker. If you really and seriously don't want to pollute, toss away your car keys and never drive again. Tell Gore to stay off the plane. Tell your next-door neighbor to toss his cigarette butts in the garbage can and not on the street. Karajou 12:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Just a side note to add: contrary to popular conception, planting a tree does not actually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A material balance over the life and death of a tree shows that the net change in CO₂ must be 0, otherwise conservation of mass is violated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate :) Jazzman831 13:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

So you're just going to denigrate him like that? Listen to yourself and think about what you're saying. Some pollution is unavoidable; if you're in the position that Gore is in, that's especially so. I highly doubt he could reduce his carbon emissions any moreso than he's done already. Tell Gore to stay off the plane? I could tell you to turn off the computer to reduce the energy that you're consuming. Obviously, it's an unavoidable energy and carbon expense.

I'm at a loss why my fellow Conservatives are so vehmently opposed towards the environmental movement. Is it because it was fathered during the Progressive Movement? If so, then that's a pretty cruddy reason. With the exception of groups that take it WAY too far (I would never support those groups that encourage people to become vegans or BS like that; it accomplishes nothing), the environmental movement benefits everyone. Cleaner air improves health; anyone who lived in LA and has moved elsewhere in the country can attest to that. Investing in energy efficient lightbulbs and appliances helps save money; my monthly electrical bills over the past two years can attest to that.

Carbon Crediting and Offsetting is something that was established under the Kyoto Protocol as a means to curb global greenhouse gas emissions while attempting to cut back on the economic impact that those limits would impose on industrial nations. It's obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best system that's been devised to date. Just because you don't see the sense in it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; this decade's insane ENSO conditions and odd climate anomalies should speak for themselves.

If you don't want to participate in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, then fine; the rest of us won't mind doing a bit extra to cover your expenses. But don't assassinate those who are trying to come up with practical ways to solve this problem. We don't need to fear Gore - he's not running for President! Stryker 13:08, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for bringing up Kyoto, and the obligations of the signatory countries, specifically Spain. Just a few very short years ago, an oil tanker sent a mayday, yet Spain, a member of Kyoto, refused to tow the ship into port. Why? They didn't want to pollute their harbor with a little oil. So they let the ship sink at sea, which sent a lot of oil on their beaches. That's an example of hypocrisy their: stating they won't pollute, yet refusing to stop pollution when they had the chance. Thanks for reminding me to include it in the article! Karajou 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Again, that's a straw man. No where was I advocating Kyoto. Rather, the principles behind Kyoto. Kyoto is deeply flawed, but at least it tries to combat the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than let it all go to heck. Thank god that we've got a great generation of atmospheric scientists coming up who might be able o solve the catastrophe being left to them. Stryker 08:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Your global warming inuendo is a straw man, as these same scientists, like every like-minded scientist in the decade before, will talk about every excuse under the sun that causes global warming except the sun itself. And by the way, Stryker...your edits prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, despite what you said about yourself above, you are not a conservative by any means possible. Karajou 08:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Your animosity towards scientists is blinding you from what is actually being said about global climate change. It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic, because if you had done so, then you'd know that the decently-well understood mechanism of solar energy fluctuation is almost always used as a baseline in calculate relative energy levels in the atmosphere. The sun's contribution is already well understood, with the exception of some funky stuff with the solar wind and the VA belts. I urge you to get out of the political editorials about the topic and pick up a copy of Natural or the journal of the AMS before you continue to spread misinformation on the global climate change debate (which, I should add, is over debate-wise; it's more than corroborated that global climate change is occuring, and the only 'debate' left is to the extent that human industrialization has catalyzed the process).

I'd like to see how my edits prove I'm not conservative. One can be an environmentalist and still be a conservative. Was no one here ever a boy scout when they were younger? If someone was, don't you cherish your memories of the outdoors? Conservation should be a hallmark of Conservatism; it would please me very much if we could take it back. I think that there is a misconception that conservation is something that necessitates expanded government; really, it just requires education about the environment, which I've found will almost always spur people to take personal action to protect it, negating government intervention. As for defending Gore, he's been instrumental in bringing attention to the environment. I may sharply disagree with his political philosophy, but the man is accomplishing very important things - I daresay greater things than either I or you will ever accomplish in our lives. The man deserves respect. Being vile towards the opposition just out of contempt is a liberal characteristic, not a conservative one. Stryker 10:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

<--

• "It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic"
• It's obvious you never read the granddaddy of climatology scholars who says this alleged "scholarship" is a bunch of huey,

• Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth', Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. RobS 11:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

That's a strawman., and a terrible one as that. Reid Bryson isn't the "father of climatology;" he's really not even that famous. Sure, he's published some articles and some books (I've read Climate of Hunger), but he hasn't published any new work in two decades. Once again, if we'd please stop reading internet blogs to get our science, we'd be well aware that the father of modern climatology is Alexander Humboldt, one of the most famous oceanographers of all time. Reid Bryson is not an authoritative source on the global warming debate. Stryker 11:31, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Right; he's just a senile old man outside of progressive thought. Typical response. Can't refute scholarship, so attack the source. RobS 11:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

The source is not credible and doesn't refute the initial data albeit for bald, unsupported assertions. On Edit: I'd like to point out that I've yet to make a change to the actual article pending the resolution of this argument. Stryker 11:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

So you say the source is not credible. Big deal. Who are you? Just an anonymous internet crusader with a point of view to peddle, whom the evidence now shows, is willing to denigrate and impugn the established reputation of a scholarly source. What is the motive? Dr. Bryson gives us the motive, based upon his many years of experience in the academic sphere, in addition to debunking the so-called "scholarship" and science.

So, if you haven't noticed by now, this is not DailyKos, or any other site where anonymous crusaders invent and perpetrate legends to impugn and discredit people the don't like or disagree with. Thus far, you've offered nothing to further this discussion, or improve the mainspace article.

Basically what I am saying amounts to this: liberal pap can amount to trolling, once it's been established the purpose or point of it to waste Sysop's time. RobS 11:57, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Right now, I may be just an anonymous internet crusader, but then what role do you play? I'm content to remain anonymous and have my credentials questioned; I could care less whether my credentials are respected on an internet site as long as they're respected in the real world.

The simple matter of fact is that Bryson is just regurgitating the same anti-GW talking points; the fact that he used to be a source of authority doesn't in any way bolster the argument. I've heard the exact same talking points in nearly the same wording from a wide variety of non-scientific sources. If anything, it undermines the argument, because a professional is unable to even put a tiny bit of scientific spin on them. I laugh at any argument that tries to introduce motive; kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune.

I'm not going to even touch the mainspace here until this argument is resolved because I already know I'll be banned for it; the 'motive' is apparent. However, I can't sit by without at least contesting this issue. My principles don't allow it. Stryker 12:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

In carrying forward this reductio ad absurdum, let's examine this claim,

• kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune

Very interesting premise. Ok, so they do not want to get rich. They must be driven by ideology then, huh? Hmmm, what ideology? Since "scientifically," there is no God, and they are not motived by money, what ideology drives these kids? Hmmm, is it to prove God wrong? Maybe scientists are smarter than God, huh? Maybe that is what drives them to be scientists since the are not motivated by money, to prove God wrong and to prove that to the rest of us, that they are smarter than God, huh? Very interesting premise. RobS 12:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

RobS, I chose to be a scientist because I wanted to understand the world around me in a finer detail. I knew I would not make a "ton of money" (Scientific PhDs are the most underpaid for the amount of education than any other grad degree). I did not have a motive against god like you guessed in your paragraph above, in fact I attend a Presbyterian church like many of my colleagues at the NIH do. Perhaps this will shed some light on Stryker's response. Just to note, Bryson is a researcher who has been out of mainstream science discoveries in a decade to say the least. To put this in perspective perhaps you should look at what has been discovered in the past decade to see how that affects his creditability. Another point to make is the number of scientists who show evidence of climate change and causes, this is very important in the scientific community as well as any mathematician could explain the statistical relevance. Just because someone is not looking does not mean it is not there, this is the case of Bryson. He has yet to offer any scientifically viable evidence contrary to what modern climatologists have observed. As for Gore, it amazes me the number of people who complain about a man who is trying to make a change but are not willing to support the idea of the change. I have a son, I would like for him to enjoy the world as I have. I will do what I can to prevent the negative impact of my actions on the enviroment.--TimS 15:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the sun's influence on global warming - there was recently a study published on this. The paper can be found at http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf --Rutm 13:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Couple of points/comments

I certainly agree that liberals can be hypocrites (and just as much so as any other person) but I have to say that some of these examples are weak. There are good examples of liberal hypocrites (like rich Senator Kennedy who campaigns for raising the minimum wage for the poor while guiltlessly taking money from those same people in the form of a government salary) but we need to be very careful about those examples we choose to highlight. People view these sorts of pages with an extra critical eye and use them as evidence against us if they aren't good enough.

• Currently, the examples of George Cloony and Mark Wahlburg don't actually show any hypocracy. There must be two actions to show hypocracy and both of those examples show one action. If you think they are hypocrites because of the movies they are in (and this is a very, very weak argument) at least show an example of a movie where they endorsed guns.
• The O'Donnel, Brady, and Gore examples are excellent. And frightening. But they clearly demonstrate how those individuals are being hypocritical.
• If something "speaks for itself" then it shouldn't be very hard to just say it on the article. Without investing time into analyzing the links myself, I have no idea how Kerry is being hypocritical. And if I wanted to do my own research, I wouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopedia!
• Finally, a suggestion: could Greenpeace's insistance on safe, clean, domestic fuel, while at the same time railing against our cleanest, safest and most energy efficient fuel source (nuclear energy) be considered hypocritical?

In Greenpeace's case, it is their specific protest against oil drilling by sailing their vessels to oil drilling platforms at sea. The vessels they use are powered by the same oil and/or gas being produced by those platforms. Think about it. Do you go to the corner gas station and protest them, yet still expect to fill your tank up while your there? Karajou 13:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

No no, I agree with the picture, and I find it rather funny. I was just saying that I additionally find it hypocritical of them to boycott the only practical solution to their problem. Jazzman831 13:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

"Do As I Say (Not As I Do)"

National Review had an article on Peter Schewizer's book, "Do As I Say( Not As I Do)", which documents hypocrisy by liberals. He shows alot of liberal hyprocrisy in this article. For instance, on Nancy Pelosi's union policy, he states:

"Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this."

He also shows hypocrisy in a lot of other liberals like Michael Moore, Hillery Clinton, Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, etc. You might want to check out this article. Hope this helps, --Tash 13:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, it does help. I also have Al Franken's assitance via a book titled Pants on Fire. Feel free to add in! Karajou 13:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

More on Clooney and Wahlberg

The following information should be added to the sections on George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Clooney says that he is against war, but starred in the movie Three Kings where he played a soldier fighting in the Gulf War. Anti-gun zealot Mark Wahlberg also starred in this same film.--Conservateur 15:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Movies aren't real. *sigh* --Bucklesman 20:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The whole Cloony point is absolutely ridicilous and retarded. For Gods sake, he was in a film - Films are not reality! Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty. Denzo 10:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I thought liberals opposed the death penalty. I guess you liberals only want the death penalty for conservatives.--Conservateur 17:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd keep the Clooney and Wahlberg criticism in this list, because it make instantly clear that this list is just for entertainment, and not to be taken seriously. Conservatives can also be funny. User:Order 27 July

Yesserie, films are not reality, but real people play parts in those films, and that real-person Clooney could have had a stroke of reality on the set with the gun in his hands and simply lived up to his own word, and dropped the gun on the floor! But obviously he didn't. As to Denzo and his little rant, he proved his own hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech, specifically who he thinks should have it, and who should not. Karajou 11:17, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Interesting then that you blocked him right before you posted your reply, so that, even if he wanted, he will not be able to reply in kind. If actor's roles had much to do with their true natures and the substance of their beings then they wouldn't be such great actors; neither would a certain actor wind up as POTUS. U2 11:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Interesting that you did not read what he said which led to the block. I don't think anyone has the right or the authority to state that someone "deserves the death penalty" for writing a piece that he disagrees with. Karajou 12:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Am I to take it you've not heard of hyperbole? While it can be difficult to "hear" humor in the written word one should note the context, which, in this case, was, "films are not reality" (another thing in the same "not in reality category"), "Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty." The over-the-top measure (death) to deal with the complaint (shaky writing), should have indicated that the complainant was having a bit of fun at the expense of the writer. U2 12:53, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

If you can successfully prove that it was hyperbole, then I'll take you at your word. But then again, every time a lib always engages in such talk and gets caught, he's got to have a pass for it, an excuse, a loophole. They always come up with something like "Oh, it was just a slip of the tounge, didn't mean it, or maybe it was poor hyperbole" or something similar to that. Karajou 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

"Every time a lib always engages"? Kinda sounds like hyperbole :) Jazzman831 14:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Hyperbole is talking about a bomb with a smile. Hyperbole gone bad is talking about the bomb with a smile at the airport. :) Karajou 08:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Please!

I have to go...someone please archive this page! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 08:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Kyoto and Spain

The entry on the oil tanker prestige contains nonsense. First, the Kyoto has nothing to do with leaking oil tankers, and second, the Prime minister of Spain at that time was Aznar. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure if he was liberal or not. User:Order

• Mr. Literal? Isn't nonsense at all, if you look at it as another example of hypocrisy, in thinking. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 10:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Hypocrisy by whom? Aznar? The Kyoto protocol? In thinking what? User:Order

Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue

The entry in taxes on cigarettes in Tennessee contains nonsense. Increasing the price of a product, can increase the revenue even if the number of sold items decreases. The entry suggest otherwise. User:Order

What you just said is nonsense. The Tennessee state government and anti-tobacco coalitions fully expected people to continue smoking; raise the price without hurting sales and the state gets that increase in revenue, which is exactly what's happening now. I've seen people walk into my store complaining about the high prices, but not once did these same people cut down their smoking as a result. The people who raised the taxes on cigarettes knew it too. Karajou 11:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What I said is not nonsense. To paraphrase Andy, this is just basic economics. You can increase prices, leading to a decrease in demand, and still make a profit. Happens all the time. User:Order

To add a bit of math to this argument. If you increase prices by 7%, demand can drop up to 6.5% and you still make a profit. User:Order

We're not talking about economics in this particular article; we're talking about people who say one thing and do another. With regard to smoking-related taxation, there are people who demanded the tax, both in state government and in anti-smoking organizations, and these same people expected to make a windfall in revenue as soon as taxes were raised, while at the same time telling the public they expect people would reduce or quit smoking as a result of the higher rates. The only way that the state can collect those higher rates is for people to be smoking; the state cannot collect the taxes from cigarette sales if nobody is lighting up. Karajou 12:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

A possible explanation is that the proponents of anti-smoking legislation wish to acquire it because it will reduce smoking (provding the political and social impetus for the change), while at the same time, attempt to rationalize with opponents of the move by re-assuring them that it would not have a severely detrimental effect. It sounds like politics, not hypocrisy. Stryker 12:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What basic economics tells you is that both is possible. You can raise the taxes by 7%, and then make a windfall and have consumption drops by up to 6.5%. What is so difficult to understand about that. User:Order